The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2554.htm
IJEBR
27,9
26
Received 13 November 2019
Revised 21 August 2020
30 November 2020
30 March 2021
Accepted 2 June 2021
International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research
Vol. 27 No. 9, 2021
pp. 26-47
Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-2554
DOI 10.1108/IJEBR-11-2019-0634
The definition of entrepreneurship:
is it less complex than we think?
Sam Prince, Stephen Chapman and Peter Cassey
SODOTO, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The paper introduces a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that promotes a broader
perspective of the phenomenon. The purpose of the paper is to re-conceptualise the act of entrepreneurship so
as to reduce it to the fundamental behaviours and processes.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper sets out the motivations for and challenges in establishing a
broader definition of entrepreneurship. Following this, current approaches to defining entrepreneurship are
reviewed. In light of these, a definition of entrepreneurship is offered that captures a new perspective in
understanding entrepreneurship. A critique of the offered definition is offered with regards to promoting
theory development, empirical research, quality predictions and a distinctive research domain.
Findings – The authors argue that a definition of entrepreneurship that is focussed on the development and
validation of ideas provides a thought-provoking re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship. Extant
perspectives on entrepreneurship as business/organisation creation, uncertainty, innovation, value creation
and opportunity recognition/creation are drawn on to demonstrate the applicability of the definition.
Originality/value – The pursuit for an encompassing definition of entrepreneurship has been both extensive
and earnest, which has inadvertently resulted in a sizable pool of definitions. The authors offer a re-
conceptualisation of entrepreneurship with the intent to provide a broad yet coherent definition that
encompasses all acts of entrepreneurship. A benefit of this conceptualisation is the establishment of the
endpoint of the entrepreneurship process that delineates it from the domain of management.
Keywords Definition, Entrepreneurship research, Entrepreneurial process, Validation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Extant definitions of entrepreneurship variously relate to opportunity pursuit, business
creation, uncertainty, profit-seeking and more, reflecting the myriad perspectives that exist
within the entrepreneurship field and beyond (Bennett, 2006; Gartner, 1990). This definitional
diversity has been well documented to date (Audretsch et al., 2015; Alegre et al., 2017; Bacq
and Jansen, 2011; Bruyat and Julian, 2001; Dato-on and Kalakay, 2016; Moroz and Hindle,
2011), including the impact this diversity has on what is included and excluded within the
entrepreneurship domain (Howorth et al., 2005). Whilst some scholars have lamented the
attention that the definition of entrepreneurship has received in the literature (e.g. Low, 2001),
others have motivated a continued discourse as a means of advancing the field (Baker and
Welter, 2017; Shane, 2012; Welter et al., 2017). This is captured by an author of one of most
prominent definitions of entrepreneurship within the field today (Shane and Venkataraman,
2000), stating that “[. . .] the field has taken a problematic approach to dealing with this
unresolved definitional debate. Instead of hashing it out, the field has largely adopted [our
definition,] [. . .] if the field is to advance, we need to do a better job of deciding on our
definition of entrepreneurship” (Shane, 2012, p. 13).
© Sam Prince, Stephen Chapman and Peter Cassey. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This
article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The author wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this article whose insightful critiques
pushed to us to develop our ideas and ultimately resulted in a much improved contribution.
 The conjecture of Shane’s (2012) remarks implies that a lack of clarity surrounding the Towards
definition of entrepreneurship has impacted on the advancement of the field in some respects. defining all
Two broad domains in which this impact may be seen are education and research – however,
given the scope of entrepreneurship, we acknowledge that the domains of impact are likely
entrepreneurship
ubiquitous. The demand for entrepreneurship education has been increasing for the previous
two decades (AACSB, 2017; Charney and Libecap, 2003). Interestingly, however, there is a
lack of continuity in the programmes that are offered across these institutions (Bennett, 2006;
Brush et al., 2003). One of the benefits that definitional clarity offers entrepreneurship 27
education is the establishment of discipline boundaries, demarcating what entrepreneurship
is and, importantly, what it is not. Arguably, clearer boundaries provided through
definitional clarity would promote more coherent and efficacious education programmes.
From a research perspective, definitional clarity facilitates investigations into
entrepreneurship by establishing the questions to be asked and the behaviours, processes
and outcomes to be studied, providing a clear lens through which concerted research can
accumulate (Anderson and Starnawska, 2008).
The paper is an earnest attempt to contribute to the important ongoing discourse around
the definitional clarity of entrepreneurship. A narrative methodological approach was
adopted for the current work. In an attempt to capture the many and diverse
conceptualisations and definitions of entrepreneurship and to avoid reviewing literature
from within limited conceptual perspectives (Baker and Welter, 2017; Welter et al., 2017) or
within a particular period, we elected to not restrict our search to specific journals nor time
periods. Instead, we required only that articles be from scholarly peer-reviewed sources.
Literature searches were conducted using combinations of the keywords: definition*,
defining, meaning*, concept* and entrepreneur*. In addition, relevant references found
within retrieved papers were reviewed. After reviewing papers that offered a distinct
definition of entrepreneurship, the authors debated these definitions in an effort to distil out
the commonalities that existed across definitions. This approach, ultimately, proved difficult
and so was augmented with a more conceptual approach whereby the authors debated
conceptualisations that would be consistent with and account for the definitions in the
reviewed literature.
Herein we unpack some of the challenges in establishing definitional clarity. Following
this, we review current approaches to account for the extant definitional diversity. Next, we
introduce a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that aspires to be a broader definition
that captures the fundamental aspects of entrepreneurship across the myriad contexts in
which it is enacted. This definition is then analysed with respect to current prominent
definitional categories in an attempt to demonstrate its applicability. Lastly, we critique of the
offered definition highlighting implications and limitations.

Challenges in establishing definitional clarity

As a field of inquiry, entrepreneurship is distinct from many other fields as it is studied from
the perspectives of different disciplines. For example, economics, business, management,
psychology and sociology scholars have all contributed definitions to the entrepreneurship
literature, each from the perspectives of the varying ontological paradigms that underlie
these different disciplines. Unsurprisingly, this has influenced many diverse
conceptualisations of entrepreneurship (Anderson and Starnawska, 2008; Bruyat and
Julian, 2001; Lindgren and Packendorff, 2009). Notwithstanding this multi-discipline
approach to entrepreneurship research to date, it is not apparent why definitional clarity
could not exist across invested research disciplines.
Beyond the differing perspectives in defining entrepreneurship, is the vastly different
ways in which entrepreneurship is enacted. Such complexity has largely been dealt with in
IJEBR the literature with one of two approaches. One approach has resulted in a burgeoning
27,9 literature of sub-classes of entrepreneurship. As a non-exhaustive list, nascent (Lichtenstein
et al., 2007), international (Keupp and Grassman, 2009), corporate (Sharma and Chrisman,
1999), intrapreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001), technological (Shane and
Venkataraman, 2003), social (Bacq and Janssen, 2011), academic (Abreu and Grinevich,
2013), environmental (Lenox and York, 2011) and indigenous (Hindle and Moroz, 2010)
entrepreneurship have all been defined. Whilst these extant definitions are well suited to the
28 sub-class of entrepreneurship they describe, they are limited in holistically describing
entrepreneurship, as it is enacted in the myriad of ways (Kobia and Sikalieh, 2010).
Another, likely incidental, approach was highlighted in a recent commentary, lamenting a
bias in contemporary research to focus on high-growth technology-centric entrepreneurship
(Welter et al., 2017). The authors persuasively argue that such a bias towards the low-hanging
fruit of the entrepreneurship phenomenon (i.e. hyper-successful billionaire tech firms) has
restricted the perspective of entrepreneurship to what are, in actuality, rare acts of
entrepreneurship. This tendency to focus on only one type, or perhaps more accurately, to not
focus on all types of entrepreneurship has been suggested to be a main contributor to the
current definitional obscurity with important consequences for the direction of the field
(Baker and Welter, 2017).
An often-overlooked challenge in gaining definitional clarity is temporal. Does
entrepreneurship as it is currently enacted resemble entrepreneurship from Cantillon’s
(1734) 18th century description? Or from before the common era when trade first appeared?
Brockhaus (1987) acknowledged this temporal dynamic, stating that definitions of
entrepreneurship have changed in line with the evolution of business concepts and
ownership forms. This was a very astute insight considering the technology and Internet
booms, which have dramatically impacted on both the practice and study of entrepreneurship
(Welter et al., 2017), would not occur for many years. Importantly, this changing phenotype of
entrepreneurship is on-going.
These challenges necessitate a different approach. This approach entails transitioning
from the specifics, from the specific perspective of one discipline, from one specific type of
entrepreneur or act of entrepreneurship and from one specific element of entrepreneurship
that is tied too closely to transitory factors. The goal of such an approach is to find the
commonality that underpins all acts of entrepreneurship. In short, we need to broaden our
horizons (see Baker and Welter, 2017 for a foundational essay motivating this approach).

A broadening of horizons
Based on a review of the literature, two general approaches to broaden entrepreneurship
definitions beyond specific theoretical perspectives can be identified. One approach has been
in the earnest attempts to form amalgamated definitions that capture the essential elements
across numerous theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship. For example, Hebert and Link
(1989) proposed a definition that encompassed uncertainty, opportunity recognition and
innovation, combining insights from the seminal economic theorists Knight (1921), Kirzner
(1979) and Schumpeter (1934), respectively. Definitions resulting from this approach (see also
McKenzie et al., 2007) are necessarily complex, with the inclusion of many definitional
elements. Consequently, such definitions become highly precise. In contrast to the goals of the
approach, the resulting definitions produce a specific checklist that describes a restricted
perspective of entrepreneurship. Indeed, other scholars have been critical of this approach,
advising against such a “complexity trap” (Peneder, 2009, p. 79).
Another approach embracing a broader perspective looks to maintain the prominent
theoretical perspectives on entrepreneurship but with the added structure of a sophisticated
and multi-faceted framework (e.g. Kuratko et al., 2015; Peneder, 2009; Shepherd, 2011).
The goal of this approach is to encompass the many theoretical perspectives on Towards
entrepreneurship with definitional coherence provided through the deliberate complexity of defining all
the framework. For instance, Audretsch et al. (2015) developed a framework around three
definitional themes that they describe as the most common – organizational status,
entrepreneurship
entrepreneurial behaviour and business or individual performance. The framework
embraces the complexity amongst the differing perspectives of entrepreneurship whilst
providing important structure to assist interpretation. Given the relatively recent emergence of
this approach, it is yet unclear what impact it will have on the future development on the field. 29
What is apparent is that the approach is theoretically sophisticated. At a minimum, it requires a
cursory knowledge of a broad scientific literature. As such, the applicability of this approach is
limited outside of the research domain. However, the move to embrace a broader perspective is
undoubtedly positive and marks a promising direction in the pursuit of definitional clarity.

A new approach
The alternative approach to adding complexity into a definition is to stipulate a definition at a
more fundamental level. That is, to achieve the desired all-encompassing nature by reducing
the complexity. As such, our goal is to capture all entrepreneurs with a definition of
entrepreneurship. To achieve this goal, the definition should include only those elements
shared across all acts of entrepreneurship and reduce it to the fundamental core activity
carried out by all entrepreneurs. It is in this vein that we offer a definition of entrepreneurship
as the act of generating and developing an idea for validation, which we now dissect in detail.
The utility of a definition comes from the degree to which it facilitates study into the
defined phenomenon. There has been growing consensus that studying entrepreneurship
from a behavioural perspective is a fruitful and necessary direction for the future of the field
(e.g. Audretsch, 2012; Davidsson et al., 2001; Gartner, 1988; Ucbasaran et al., 2001). The
offered definition explicitly states that entrepreneurship is an act that we use as verb. That is,
entrepreneurship is described here as an activity involving numerous and various
behaviours, aligning the offered definition with the direction of the field. Defining
entrepreneurship in this manner also suggests that participation is the prerequisite for
being labelled an entrepreneur. It is not whether certain performance metrics are obtained or
whether the individual or team has some desired checklist of characteristics. Of course, there
are myriad factors that influence how entrepreneurship is enacted, both at the macro- and
micro-levels, as well across a varying time scale (Gartner, 1985). However, it is participation
itself, not how it is enacted, that is the essential baseline for entrepreneurship.
The act of entrepreneurship as defined here can be broken down into three definitional
elements. The first two elements involve ideas, both generating and developing them. The
emphasis on ideas comes from the acknowledgement that ideas are essential in
entrepreneurship (Jarvis, 2016). The idea, regardless of the quality, is what the
entrepreneurial entity is attempting to realise. For clarity, we refer to the individual
entrepreneur or, as it is commonly enacted, the entrepreneurial team (Kamm et al., 1990; Klotz
et al., 2014) who are responsible for enacting entrepreneurship as the entrepreneurial entity.
Importantly, it is not just any idea, but it is the entity’s own idea. This might seem like a trivial
distinction, but it is essential. To illustrate, think of an idea that gets conveyed to an individual or
team, such as an employee or team member, and they are charged with implementing it, either
verbatim or with very little modification. In effect, they are carrying out instructions and are,
therefore, responsible for the outcome, bearing the consequences of a failure to implement the
idea correctly. However, this is distinct from being responsible for the suitability and quality of
the idea; it is the idea generator who bears the consequences of the failure of the idea. How such
consequences manifest within the entrepreneurial entity will vary but we speculate that factors
such as entity composition and dynamics (Gundry et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2017; Steffens et al., 2012),
IJEBR legal ownership (Breugst et al., 2015) and the degree of psychological ownership of the idea (Man
27,9 and Farquharson, 2015) are implicated. The bearing of that uncertainty is an important notion in
entrepreneurship (e.g. Knight, 1921) and as such the notion of idea generation is explicitly
included in the offered definition.
An idea, as used in the offered definition, is linked with the concept of entrepreneurial
opportunity, and given the substantial literature on opportunity recognition (Hayek, 1945;
Kirzner, 1979), it requires some unpacking. Two broad approaches have been adopted in
30 understanding opportunities. Namely, a discovery approach whereby entrepreneurial
opportunities exist pre-formed in the environment awaiting discovery (e.g. Shane, 2003;
Shane and Venkataraman, 2000) and a constructivist approach whereby opportunities are
created by the entrepreneurial entity (e.g. Sarasvathy, 2001). The appropriateness and utility
of both approaches have been the subject of on-going debate (e.g. Alvarez et al., 2017;
Davidsson, 2015; Ramoglou and Tsang, 2016; Ramoglou and Zyglidopoulos, 2015). Whilst we
acknowledge the importance of these debates, it is not our intention to weigh-in. Indeed, the
motivation behind the offered definition allows for both approaches to be accounted for; an
idea could refer to the recognition of an opportunity as it exits pre-formed in the environment
as per the discovery approach; whereas an idea could take a constructivist approach, it
constitutes the blueprint with which to formulate an opportunity and substantiate its
potential. Notwithstanding this flexibility, we align the idea concept most closely with
Davidsson’s (2015) recent description of the New Venture Idea construct. As such, “an idea” as
intended in the offered definition is a cognitive and non-material conceptualisation of what
the entrepreneurial entity is attempting to realise.
However, complete ideas are neither passive outcomes of the opportunity recognition
process (Davidsson, 2015) nor are they the same as their subsequent implementation in the
form a venture (Kuckertz et al., 2017). Rather, the realisation of an idea through the
formulation of (potential) solutions or the structuring of a plan is an active process – it is a
development process. An established literature describes two broad forms that this
development process may take. Effectuation theories (Sarasvathy, 2001) describe a
development process that occurs within the given means of the entrepreneurial entity.
That is, the development process is constrained by and decisions are made with regard to
what is currently available to the entity. Of course, the nature of those means will evolve, as
the process unfolds and new opportunities present themselves (Ronstadt, 1988). Conversely,
causation theories describe a development process towards a pre-determined end for which
the means are obtained. That is, the development process is shaped by and decisions are
made with regards to what the entity is attempting to realise. Whilst we deliberately refrain
from imposing a specific form on the development process within this conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship, the development of an idea could unfold as a causation or effectuation
process, or both (Chandler et al., 2011; Karri and Goel, 2008) or perhaps neither (see Lerner
et al., 2018 for an unintentional developmental process). Speculatively, causation process may
be more prevalent in the entrepreneurial act of intrapreneurship, where idea development is
likely to be constrained by the strategic vision of the organisation and for a specific pre-
determined purpose. Whereas, effectuation processes may approximate entrepreneurial acts
more generally given the suggested lack of prescience that underlies idea development
(Dimov, 2011) and the association of effectuation processes with the inherent uncertainty of
entrepreneurship (Chandler et al., 2011). Therefore, how the development process manifests in
any entrepreneurial act will vary, perhaps even over the course of the one act. However, it is
not the specifics of the process but the process itself that is suggested to be in all acts of
entrepreneurship.
We situate this development process within a broad humanistic perspective of
entrepreneurship. That is, the development process is one of dynamic change where
neither the entrepreneurial entity nor the idea nor the environment are static (Bruyat and
Julien, 2001). What this change process could look like and the factors involved for just one Towards
entrepreneurial act are both many and diverse (Siggelkow, 2002), let alone for defining all
entrepreneurship as a broader phenomenon (McKelvey, 2004). Given this, we choose to
highlight one crucial change mechanism that permeates this process. Entrepreneurial entities
entrepreneurship
interact with their environment in attempting to realise their idea, subsequently changing
and being changed by their interactions (Dimov, 2016). Central to these interactions is the
important role of learning in the entrepreneurial process (Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005). Given the
breadth and depth of this diverse literature and considerations of space, we refrain from an 31
unsophisticated discussion of the interaction and consequences of the multi-faceted
phenomenon of learning (see Wang and Chugh, 2014 and c.f. Pittaway and Thorpe, 2012
figure for a visual representation of this complexity) within the development process.
However, we note that learning is inextricably embedded within the conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship being advanced here and as such could subsume broader learning
frameworks (e.g. Cope, 2005), including cognitive (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001), behavioural
(Bruyat and Julien, 2001) and sociological (Rae, 2005) models of entrepreneurial learning.
Consequently, the development process is a learning process, which is shaped by the suite of
experiences and skills that the entrepreneurial entity initiates the process with (Cope, 2005;
Parker, 2013; Shane, 2000). Over the course of the entrepreneurial entity attempting to realise
their idea, there are innumerable opportunities to learn, including about the self, the venture,
the environment, venture management and relationships, as a non-exhaustive and broad list
of learning domains (Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005). Of course, given the dynamic change nature of
this process, learning is an interactive process, with insights gained in one domain
facilitating, or perhaps hindering, insights gained in other domains.
The humanistic nature of this development process, and entrepreneurship more broadly,
suggests that this process is imbued with an inherent emotional journey (Cope, 2005). This
perspective is reflected in the increasing research attention into the role of emotions in the
entrepreneurship process over the last decade (Cardon et al., 2012; Omorede et al., 2015; Shepherd,
2015). We propose that the experience of emotion is inextricably linked to the development
process, with important implications for initiating the process (Biraglia and Kadlie, 2017), the
facilitation of and commitment to the process, including subsequent subjective perceptions
of success (Drnovsek et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2018), team dynamics (Cardon et al., 2017) and
the fluctuation of emotional valence across the process (Collewaert et al., 2016). Further
demonstrating the embedded role of emotions in the conceptualisation of entrepreneurship
offered here is their implication in the development process via learning (Lackeus, 2014), playing
both a facilitatory and inhibitory role (Collewaert et al., 2016) across various entrepreneurial
functions (Cardon et al., 2009), including processing venture failure (Byrne and Shepherd, 2015;
Cope, 2011), and within the broad domains of learning outlined previously (Cope, 2005; Rae, 2005).
We ground the third element of the offered definition, validation, in the contemporary
conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as the creation of value for others (Bruyat and Julien,
2001; Lackeus et al., 2016; Moroz and Hindle, 2011). Broadly, this conceptualisation focuses on
the new value that is created by the entrepreneurial entity as a result of iterative and
developmental entrepreneurial processes. This view has also recently been expanded to
include the nature of the value created (Lackeus, 2018). The offered conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship subsumes this view with the creation of new value underpinning the
purpose of the development. But how is value determined? We suggest that this occurs
through validation. Validation is used here as a related yet broader concept to the economic
term namely, valorisation, which refers to the creation of increased or surplus value that is
added to a commodity as the result of production. In essence, valorisation is the realisation of
a products worth. Applied to the current conceptualisation, validation is the realisation of the
worth of an idea as a result of the development process. We draw on the work of innovation
diffusion and adoption to explain this further.
IJEBR The staggered adoption of new ideas by individuals has long been known (Rogers, 1962,
27,9 1976). For a high-level summary, the diffusion approach to idea adoption explains the staggered
adoption of ideas as stemming from varying psychological profiles that influence an individual’s
willingness to adopt a new idea (see Peres et al., 2010 for a review). The factors include people’s
perceived capacity and willingness to use a product (Walker et al., 2002); compatibility with an
individual’s lifestyle; knowledge, wants and needs (Saaksjarvi, 2003); beliefs and attitudes
surrounding a product both prior- and post-adoption (Karahanna et al., 1999), as well as
32 differences across gender (Venkatesh et al., 2000) and age (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000).
The most influential diffusion approach has been the work of Rogers (1962), who
described five segments of adopters, each characterised by a different psychological profile
that defined their willingness to adopt a product (see Van den Bulte and Joshi, 2007 for a two-
segment approach). For considerations of space, a summary of only the first three groups of
adopters will be provided, as they concern the notion of validation. In the life cycle of an
innovation, the first group to adopt a product, the innovators, show no resistance to adoption.
As enthusiasts, they actively seek out the product, adopting it out of need for experience,
rather than anything intrinsic to the product. The second group of adopters, the early
adopters, shows resistance to adoption only in terms of how well the product will fit them. As
progressives, they do not base their adoption decisions on others, willing to adopt a product if
they can envision a benefit from its use, even if that benefit may not be immediate or if it
would require modification to their current lifestyle. The third group of adopters, the early
majority, displays the first significant resistance to adoption. They are not willing to adopt a
product based merely on its own merits. Concerned with how the product will positively
impact their life with minimal personal effort, they will not gravitate to a product out of
curiosity. Instead, they look for references of how the product has proven its worth, needing to
be persuaded by a reference group of like-minded adopters.
Somewhat paradoxically, the reference group sort by the early majority is not that of the
innovators or early adopters but the early majority themselves. That is, the early majority
will only adopt a product if a majority of others have already adopted it. This gives rise to a
necessary pioneering early majority – the initial sub-portion of adopters who serve as the
reference group for the remaining early majority. These pioneering early majorities constitute
a gateway to securing adoption of an idea by the majority of the market. It is this adoption of
an idea by the pioneering early majority that we refer to as validation (see Moore, 1991 for an
exposition of this adoption phenomenon from a marketing perspective). As such, achieving
validation is crucial for the long-term success of any entrepreneurial venture.
Recall that in the offered conceptualisation of entrepreneurship, ideas are central. As
outlined previously, the idea itself is different from the specific manifestation of the idea in the
form of a product, process or service that is the focus of the entrepreneurial venture. We refer
to the idea manifest as an artefact (Berglund et al., 2020). As conceptualised here, validation
marks idea-market fit for the entrepreneurial entity. It has been established that the target
population, be that the local community or the entire world, has a want or need for the idea,
and the specific artefact has gained traction in the market. At this post-validation stage,
further modification of the idea is not required but only modification to the specific artefact.
The conjecture of the offered definition is that validation is the lens through which the
entire idea generation and development process takes place. Every decision during this
process is made, either directly or indirectly, to maximise the possibility of validation of the
idea. Importantly, there is no assumption of optimality in this process. Although the
entrepreneurial entity makes decisions based on considerations of validation, it does not
mean that any one decision or even the entire development process will actually increase the
likelihood of validation. This is an important assumption of the offered definition; it is,
intentionally, completely agnostic to success. The label of entrepreneurship is separate from
any notion of success of the entrepreneurial act.
 Importantly, under the offered definition this marks the endpoint of entrepreneurship. Towards
Of course, the venture that enables the artefact does not end, but we propose that the on- defining all
going activity is no longer that of entrepreneurship. Rather, post-validation is the realm
of management. This distinction is not semantic. The skills and focus necessary for
entrepreneurship
validation of an idea are not the same as those necessary for mass-market adoption of
the artefact (Daily and Dalton, 1992; Shirokova et al., 2015). It is this difference in
repertoire that marks the crucial distinction between the activity of the entrepreneurial
entity and the activity of management. A similar distinction was also made by Shane 33
(2003), who argued that the role of the entrepreneurial entity was the development of
new means–ends relationships whilst the role of management was optimising those new
relationships.

Accounting for existing definitions

It serves little purpose to propose a definition without situating it in the broader
landscape of extant conceptualisations. Therefore, in an attempt to demonstrate the
applicability of the offered definition, we compare it with prominent definitions of
entrepreneurship from the academic literature. For space considerations, definitions are
grouped based on five definitional elements – business creation, uncertainty, innovation,
opportunity and new value creation. A list of individual definitions by category is
provided in Table 1.

Definitional
theme Definition Author(s) Year

Uncertainty To bear risk in the reselling of agricultural and Cantillon 1734

manufactured produce
Organization and management of a business undertaking Hull, Bosley and Udell 1980
and assuming the risk for the sake of profit
The attempt to predict and act upon change within Knight 1921
markets
Activities necessary to create or carry on an enterprise Leibenstein 1968
where not all markets are well established or clearly defined
and/or which relevant parts of the production function are
not completely known
The process by which individuals – either on their own or Stevenson and Jarillo 1990
inside organizations – pursue opportunities without
regard to the resources they currently control
Business Major ownership and management of a business venture Brockhaus 1980
Creation without employment elsewhere
The creation of new enterprise Low and MacMillan 1988
The creation of new organizations Gartner 1988
New entry Lumpkin and Dess 1996
Innovation Innovative change within markets through the carrying Schumpeter 1934
out of new combinations
Opportunity Recognizing and acting upon market opportunities Kirzner 1979
The discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of Shane and Venkataraman 2000
opportunities
Value Creation A dialogic between individual and new value creation, Bruyat and Julian 2001
within an ongoing process and within an environment that Table 1.
has specific characteristics Prominent definitions
Creating shared value for others Lackeus Lundqvist and 2016 of entrepreneurship by
Williams Middleton definitional theme
IJEBR Entrepreneurship as business creation
27,9 Business (or organisation) creation and ownership, in all its many forms, is a central theme in
many influential definitions of entrepreneurship (Brockhaus, 1980; Gartner, 1988; Low and
MacMillan, 1988; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Any notion of business is a notable omission from
the offered definition. This is not because we believe that business creation is not an act of
entrepreneurship; rather, we suggest business creation is only one act of entrepreneurship.
However, the lack of an explicit reference to business in a definition of entrepreneurship is far
34 from revolutionary. Two of the most prominent entrepreneurship definitions in the literature
and entrepreneurship education are those of Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Stevenson
and Jarillo (1990), both of which make no explicit mention of business creation, management
or ownership. Admittedly, Stevenson and Jarillo reference the internal environment of an
organisation, but this was with the intent to capture intrapreneurship and corporate
entrepreneurship, a phenomenon that is mutually exclusive to business ownership.
The entrepreneurial phenomenon of intrapreneurship presents an important sounding
board for definitions of entrepreneurship. Quite clearly, entrepreneurial individuals within
organisations, who are not the founder or owner, are not entrepreneurs under this category of
definitions. Whilst this was perhaps the intention of the original authors, it is at odds with the
growing literature on intrapreneurship (e.g. Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Parker, 2011) and
corporate entrepreneurship (e.g. Dess et al., 2003; Ireland et al., 2009; Phan et al., 2009) that
situate these phenomena within the realm of entrepreneurship.
Under the offered definition, these phenomena are most assuredly acts of
entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial acts of intrapreneurship and corporate
entrepreneurship are different from the entrepreneurial act of business creation insofar
that one involves creating a business, whilst the others do not. Despite this, all three acts of
entrepreneurship share the same underlying act of generating and developing an idea for
validation. All three acts are built on an underlying idea. In an effort to have the idea realised,
all three acts involve a development process that is centred on validation of the idea. Because
one act involves behaviours specific to establishing a business and the other acts involve
convincing an executive board, internal committee or stakeholders is irrelevant to the status
of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship as acting under uncertainty

An enterprising individual who risks reputation and livelihood in pursuit of a big payoff is a
common portrait of an entrepreneur. Indeed, for many inside and outside of academia, acting
under uncertainty is a central factor in the activity of entrepreneurship. Championing this
view was the pioneering work of Knight (1921) who, amongst other issues, elucidated the
distinction between uncertainty and risk, with the latter being calculable. Broadly speaking,
Knight described an entrepreneur as having a higher propensity and ability to make
decisions in situations inherent with uncertainty.
The implication of including acting under uncertainty (although the term risk is frequently
used interchangeably) in definitions of entrepreneurship (Cantillon, 1734; Hull et al., 1980;
Knight, 1921; Leibenstein, 1968; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990) is that this characteristic separates
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. However, there is by no means consensus on this issue.
Some scholars claim a higher willingness to act under conditions of uncertainty amongst
entrepreneurs (Stewart and Roth, 2001) with others claiming no such difference (Macko and
Tyszka, 2009) or that the difference is more nuanced and less binary (Brockhaus, 1987;
Sarasvathy et al., 1998). More colloquially, there are examples of entrepreneurs who could be
labelled as uncertainty-averse in their behaviour, such as Warren Buffet whose holdings empire
was built on the idea of sure long-term bets as a means of negating the inherent uncertainty in
the stock market.
 Notwithstanding the lack of agreement on the specific nature of uncertainty in Towards
entrepreneurship, it is uncontroversial to say that it is associated to some degree. Whilst defining all
the offered definition has no explicit reference to uncertainty, it is captured in the definitional
element of validation. Validation is not guaranteed; indeed, it is inherently uncertain. Steve
entrepreneurship
Jobs summed this notion up quite succinctly – “if we succeed, they’ll buy them, but if we do
not, then they will not.” Jobs is alluding to the two definitional elements of the development
process and validation. Paraphrasing Jobs, perhaps, makes this clearer, a successful
development process will result in validation of the idea by the target population, but an 35
unsuccessful development process will not result in validation. Jobs is referring to the
uncertainty inherent in validation.
Of course, an overarching goal of the development process is to increase the likelihood of
validation. However, as it is the process itself, rather than the specifics, that is consistent
across all acts of entrepreneurship, we suggest that there is no one ideal decision that can be
made or optimal process that can be followed to ensure successful validation of the idea
(Dimov, 2011). This is not to say that entrepreneurial success is random, nor lucky, with the
skill of the entrepreneur influencing (Cope, 2005), even increasing the chance of success
(Parker, 2011). Importantly though, there is no guarantee of success. Therefore, the offered
definition captures the uncertainty in reaching the endpoint of entrepreneurship – validation.

Entrepreneurship as innovation
Innovation is evocative of the entrepreneurial genius; the likes of Edison, Musk and Ford are
all archetypes. However, innovation in entrepreneurship is an elusive concept due to limited
research into the concept (for reviews see, Block et al. (2017) and Hebert and Link (2006)).
Reflective of this elusiveness is work questioning the degree to which innovation and
entrepreneurship represent two distinct fields of inquiry (Landstr€om et al., 2015).
Notwithstanding this, innovation has long been associated with entrepreneurship. The
influential work of Schumpeter (1934) describes innovation as the central mechanism of
entrepreneurship, which he defined as new combinations of existing resources. For
Schumpeter, the innovative change born out of entrepreneurship leads to a restructuring
of the market, with resources and market share being reallocated from established
organisations to new innovative enterprises.
Bruyat and Julien (2001) elucidate this relationship in their seminal article, where the
increased novelty (i.e. innovation) of an idea is associated with the increased value that is
created and, therefore, the more archetypal the act is of entrepreneurship. While the offered
conceptualisation of entrepreneurship is deliberately devoid of connotations of magnitude,
Bruyat and Julien’s conceptualisation of new value creation provides a basis for assessing
degrees of approximation of entrepreneurship within the offered definition to the extent that
this is a useful research endeavour. Given that novelty and innovation exist on a continuum, at
what point on this continuum does an act of idea development for validation cease to be
entrepreneurial? Take for example a budding cafe owner who aims to differentiate their venture
from other local cafes with a creative name and a menu of modestly novel sandwiches. Is this
venture likely to disrupt the cafe paradigm? Clearly, no; it is uncontroversial to say that this idea
would fall in the low-magnitude region of the innovation continuum. Indeed, this development
approach may have very little impact on the venture, perhaps even hindering validation of idea.
However, has the budding cafe owner not undertaken innovation; have they not developed new
combinations of existing resources? We argue that they have. Obviously, this is an example of
low-impact innovation and that from a new value-creation perspective this act would be less
archetypical of entrepreneurship than, say, the highly innovative ideas of affordable self-
driving electric cars, franchised restaurants or fully integrated oil services.
We make no assumptions about where and to what degree innovation needs to occur
in entrepreneurship – an idea may be innovative or it may be developed in an innovative way
IJEBR or both. However, despite the heavily publicised high-impact innovative acts of
27,9 entrepreneurship, this is not a necessary element of entrepreneurship. In reality, high-
impact innovative acts are the exception rather than the rule (Baker and Welter, 2017; Shane,
2009; Welter et al., 2017). It is innovation, not high-impact innovation, which is a necessary
element of entrepreneurship as conceptualised here. The offered definition implicates
innovation within the act of entrepreneurship without stipulating the quality or quantity of
innovation involved.
36
Entrepreneurship as opportunity identification/creation
Originating from the economic tradition, opportunity recognition and creation has been an
influential perspective from which to conceptualise entrepreneurship (Davidsson, 2015; Dimov,
2011; Hayek, 1945; Kirzner, 1973) and forms the basis of some of the most widely referenced
definitions of entrepreneurship (Kirzner, 1979; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Stevenson and
Jarillo, 1990). Whether opportunities are conceptualised as existing and awaiting identification
or requiring creation (Alvarez and Barney, 2007, 2010; Alvarez et al., 2013), they are the raw
elements of entrepreneurship. All acts of entrepreneurship, from a rocket company wanting to
establish an inter-planetary human civilisation to a child who picks flowers from his/her garden
to sell on the side of the road, were initially unrealised opportunities.
Although not explicitly referenced, opportunity recognition or creation is subsumed in the
offered definition. In accordance with Davidsson’s (2015) concept of the New Venture Idea, we
consider an idea the internal perception of external opportunities. In this sense, an
opportunity may exist, awaiting recognition by alert entrepreneurial entities, or it may need
to be created from yet-unintegrated elements. In either scenario, this requires specific
knowledge on behalf of the entrepreneurial entity (Kirzner, 1973). This guiding function that
individual knowledge plays in realising opportunities appears manifest – without specific
knowledge of the potential combinations of resources representing the opportunity, it could
not be recognised (Shane, 2000). How these opportunities are realised is determined by the
nature of the development process. As outlined previously, the development process is a
complex change process involving a dialogic between the entrepreneurial entity and the idea
towards the instantiation of the idea as an artefact.
This is closely aligned with elements of Shane and Venkataraman’s definition of
entrepreneurship: the discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities. Indeed, the two
definitions are similar in spirit. Perhaps, the clearest distinction between the two is the explicit
reference to the endpoint of entrepreneurship, the purpose of discovering, evaluating and
exploiting opportunities – validation. Additionally, in updated versions of this definition the
notion of profit, as in profitable opportunity, is made explicit (Shane, 2003). Profit, be it
realised or the pursuit of, is deliberately excluded from the offered definition. This is not to
imply that many acts of entrepreneurship are not concerned with profit but to stipulate that
all acts of entrepreneurship must include the pursuit of profit is unnecessarily restrictive
(Benz, 2009). Of course, profit need not necessarily refer to financial gains and could refer to
social and environmental profit (for a solution to the monetary/social profit distinction see
Schneider, 2017). However, this brings with it a level of ambiguity that seems at odds with the
purpose of a definition of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship as value creation

Recently, there has been increasing acceptance of a broader conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship education within academic and European policy fields (Lackeus, 2018;
Lackeus et al., 2016), which draws on established sociological perspectives of
entrepreneurship as new value creation (Bruyat and Julien, 2001; Moroz and Hindle, 2011).
Collectively, this body of work advances a conceptualisation of entrepreneurship as creating
shared value for others. This perspective shifts the focus from the conduit through which Towards
value is created (i.e. via organization creation [Gartner, 1988]) to the process and its output (i.e. defining all
a dialogic between entrepreneurial entity and the new value being created). The implication of
this perspective is that it is the process of creating new value that is entrepreneurial,
entrepreneurship
rendering the medium it is created through moot. The offered re-conceptualization of
entrepreneurship shares a similar ideological foundation. As outlined previously, we see the
value-creation perspective as being subsumed within the offered definition. We conceptualise
new value creation as the potential by-product of the development process. That is, the degree 37
to which the development process results in validation of the idea artifact is the degree to
which new value has been created. In that way, the potential for value creation is inherent in
the development process. Importantly, we make no assumptions about how central the
creation of value need be to the efforts of the entrepreneurial entity.
However, there is an inherent vagueness in the new value creation perspective, with value
undoubtedly being conceptually broad. To this end, Lackeus (2018) recently provided a
framework that explicates five value categories, namely, economic, enjoyment, social, harmony
and influence. Whilst space considerations prevent elucidating this framework further, we
draw on this work to suggest that the value that an entrepreneurial entity is attempting to
create through the development process is neither unidimensional nor static. Entrepreneurial
entities may engage in entrepreneurship to create value within a single category or across
many. They may be deliberate in this endeavour or it may be incidental. Likewise, they type of
value being created may remain consistent throughout the act or it may evolve over time as a
consequence of the dynamic learning nature of the development process.
We have attempted to consolidate the offered conceptualisation with the visual illustration
in Figure 1. As described above, entrepreneurship is conceived of here as involving three inter-
related components: idea generation, idea development and idea validation. These components
form the broader entrepreneurial process. As outlined previously, the process originates in the
realm of opportunities where ideas are initially conceived. Following this, ideas are developed
towards an ever more concrete instantiation of the idea, that is, the venture offering. It is this
idea manifest that has the potential to be accepted by the target market via validation. Upon
validation, the entrepreneurial process ceases, with ongoing venture activities being in the
realm of management. The solid arrows in Figure 1 representing these main components
should not be interpreted as indicating a serial or deterministic process. Rather, as explained
here, the process is dynamic and iterative. This is shown in Figure 1 via the dashed arrows that
represent hypothetical iterations of this process, indicating that at any time an entrepreneurial
entity may, through necessity or choice, revert to another portion of the process. The process of
value creation, which is subsumed in the current conceptualisation, is represented in Figure 1 as
an inextricable by-process. That is, value is what is created as a consequence of the
entrepreneurship process upon validation of the idea.
To illustrate the inherent uncertainty that permeates the entire entrepreneurship process,
the solid arrows depicting the current conceptualisation have been overlaid on a shaded area
representing uncertainty in the top panel of Figure 1. Furthermore, the solid-greyed arrows
that project from this area indicate the omnipresent nature of uncertainty in not just the
entrepreneurship process, but also in the opportunity space and the possibility for
innovation. Likewise, the possibility for innovation that exists throughout the entire
entrepreneurship process is depicted in the bottom panel of Figure 1. The solid-grey arrow
projecting to the opportunity space reflects that the possibility for innovation is not limited to
a particular portion of the entrepreneurial process but rather is ever present.

Implications
With the current conceptualisation offered here, we have attempted to contribute to “the
absolutely fundamental process issues of entrepreneurship – what goes in, what comes out,
IJEBR
27,9
Uncertainty

Ongoing Management Process

Opportunity Identification
and/or Creation

38
Idea Development Validation
Process of Creating Value

Possibility for
Innovation

Note(s): The three main arrows represent the definitional elements: idea generation, idea
development, and idea validation. The dashed arrows indicate the iterative nature of the
entrepreneurship process and represent hypothetical iterations. The background (top panel)
represents the inherent uncertainty of the entrepreneurship process, with the grey arrows
Figure 1. indicating that it permeates the entire process. The background (bottom panel) also represents
Visual representation that the possibility for innovation is ever-present in the process. The greyed inlayed arrow
of the offered represents that the pursuit of value creation is subsumed within entrepreneurship process. The
conceptualisation of
entrepreneurship
heavy dashed vertical line represents the end of the entrepreneurship process following
validation and the transition to a management process

and how the transformation takes place [...]” (p. 32, Moroz and Hindle, 2011). In pursuit of this,
we have constructed a definition using three definitional elements, with first two elements of
the idea and development process influencing the third element of validation. This
perspective allows for a structured means by which to study the new venture creation
process, highlighting the development process as how new value is created, whereby a New
Venture Idea is gradually and iteratively brought into reality as an idea artifact (see Berglund
et al., 2020 for a sophisticated explanation of how this process might look) and validation as
the point at which it is created.
The motivation behind offering the current conceptualisation is not to argue against
extant definitions as illegitimate but rather to suggest an alternative perspective that draws
on the commonality across these definitions. To the extent we have been successful in this,
we see this work as an attempt at describing a “harmonizing” view of the entrepreneurship
process (Moroz and Hindle, 2011). Undoubtedly, many and varied types of
entrepreneurship have been described in a growing literature. We suggest that the
offered definition affords the possibility to examine and compare the myriad ways in
entrepreneurship is enacted, allowing for theory development and empirical investigation
from a perspective that coherently encompasses this complexity. For example, the
traditionally dichotomous acts of social and economic entrepreneurship (Bacq and Janssen,
2011; Mort et al., 2003) need not be viewed as fundamentally different forms of
entrepreneurship, requiring a divergence of theory (Dacin et al., 2010). Rather, the
current definition provides an avenue to convergence where these forms can be studied as
two sides of the one coin (Deeds, 2014; Shane, 2012).
 This convergence can also be leveraged for effective empirical and predictive research. Towards
Given the intended broad applicability of the offered definition, we focus on the facilitation of defining all
research into entrepreneurial learning given its inherent centrality in the development
process that frames entrepreneurship as a dynamic change process. A recent meta-analysis
entrepreneurship
on entrepreneurial learning identified individual and collective learning and explorative and
exploitative learning as two areas in need of further development (Wang and Chugh, 2014).
The definition being advanced here provides a potentially fruitful perspective from which to
investigate these important areas. With regards to the individual/collective learning 39
dichotomy, the deliberately neutral stance on the nature of the entrepreneurial entity provides
the opportunity for research questions to be investigated within the one framework. This
allows for the interaction between the type of entrepreneurial entity and the development
process to be examinable without the need to combine differing perspectives focussing on
the entrepreneur(s) as separate to entrepreneurial organisations. Likewise, the current
conceptualisation allows for the long held explorative/exploitative dichotomy of opportunity
development (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990) to be examined
within the one perspective. By categorising development processes either as explorative or
exploitative, the nature of the development process within each category can be examined
and compared with regards to, for example, cognitive styles, resource acquisition, and
favourable and unfavourable learning conditions (Wang and Chugh, 2014).
Perhaps, the most important implication of the current re-conceptualization is the
suggestion of the endpoint of entrepreneurship through the definitional element of validation.
In effect, this establishes the lifecycle of the entrepreneurial process. Often unclear in extant
definitions, this provides the opportunity for an under-explored aspect of entrepreneurship to
be elucidated. One consequence of demarcating the end of the entrepreneurial process is the
provision of bounds on the phenomenon that advocates for a distinctive discipline. This
promotes a focus on the earlier stages of what has traditionally been encompassed by the
entrepreneurial process, including high growth (Brown et al., 2017; Autio and Rannikko, 2016)
and venture exit (DeTienne, 2010; DeTienne and Wennberg, 2016). As stated previously,
under the re-conceptualisation offered here, post-validation is the domain of management
that we argue entails a shift in behavioural repertoire and strategic focus (Daily and Dolton,
1992; Shane, 2003; Shirokova et al., 2015).
Such a shift in repertoire has implications for entrepreneurship education and training.
What are the skills, mindsets and strategic foci that are most beneficial in pursuit of
validation as opposed to post-validation? Establishing the endpoint of entrepreneurship
allows for such avenues of inquiry, including elucidating the processes, behaviours,
cognitions, motivations and dynamics that facilitate the pursuit of validation and
understanding which repertoire components are adaptive both pre- and post-validation
and which are suited only to a particular stage. Developing this understanding is
advantageous, as it provides insight into what competencies may be more beneficial to
develop at a particular time and which to devote limited resources.

Limitations
Given the approach we have taken to describing a conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that
attempts to be broadly applicable by capturing the fundamental elements of the process,
there are inherent limitations which require discussion. First, we highlight the opacity of the
idea concept that is prominent in the offered definition. It is well established that
entrepreneurs act on an opportunity in an attempt to realise a venture, however, the nature of
this opportunity is continuing to be explored in a growing literature. In recognition of this,
recent work has drawn on design science to describe opportunities-as-artefacts, which
suggests opportunities can at any one time exist on a continuum from abstract ideas to their
IJEBR concrete instantiations and follow a gradual and iterative process of being brought into
27,9 reality (Berglund et al., 2020).
In many ways, the Berglund et al. conceptualisation of entrepreneurship is compatible,
even facilitatory of our conceptualisation of the idea-development process. As used in this
work, the artefact concept maps onto both the idea and the idea manifest with which
validation may be achieved. However, we found it important to separate out the abstract idea,
as a New Venture Idea (Davidsson, 2015), in order to establish the process of validation.
40 Notwithstanding this necessity, it does render the idea concept elusive and potentially
difficult to identify from a research perspective. What is an entrepreneurial entity’s idea?
When is it formed? Can it be different from the concrete instantiation of the idea? Despite this
opacity, we see this conceptualisation as useful, as it separates the abstract and concrete
forms of opportunities. This allows for acuity that facilitates the continued exploration of the
nature of opportunities and ideas in entrepreneurship.
A second limitation concerns the methodology that was adopted. Whilst the conceptual and
broad nature of this undertaking meant a narrative approach was appropriate (Snyder, 2019),
there is inherent bias and diminished rigour (Sylvester et al., 2013). We acknowledge that these
limitations will have led to insights being overlooked, potentially important ones. In an effort to
minimise the impact of this limitation, a deliberate effort was made to extend the literature
search as broadly as possible whilst ensuring scholarly rigour in the sources retrieved. An
unavoidable trade-off is needed in such an undertaking, balancing the need to synthesise a
broad and diverse literature whilst maintaining coherency and focus. To that end, we do not see
this work as a dogmatic stance on how best to conceptualise entrepreneurship; rather, we
welcome a continuing discourse and hope that this work has contributed in some manner.
A third limitation is the use of three definitional elements namely, ideas, development and
validation. Whilst this is a deliberate attempt to reduce complexity and situate the definition
at a fundamental level, a valid remark is whether we have managed the balance between
complexity and simplicity in adequately conceptualising entrepreneurship. The use of only
minimal elements has merit. It provides a structure to the entrepreneurial process in lieu of
detail on how the process is carried out from act to act and it allows for the same process to be
identified in apparently disparate acts of entrepreneurship. However, following Moroz and
Hindle (2011), in an attempt to find what is generic about entrepreneurship (i.e. describing all
acts of entrepreneurship), have we fallen short in finding what makes entrepreneurship
distinct (i.e. describing only acts of entrepreneurship) ? Whilst we leave this to other scholars
to pass judgement on, we find merit in the ongoing discussion about what human endeavours
fall in the gamut of entrepreneurship.

Conclusion
We offer a re-conceptualization of entrepreneurship for the purpose of capturing the
fundamental elements of the phenomenon. The offered definition is motivated by wanting
definitional clarity that transcends the increasingly numerous and disconnected subfields of
entrepreneurship (Baker and Welter, 2017). It is hoped that by reducing the complexity
surrounding the definition of entrepreneurship and explicating a clear elemental definition,
the traditionally separated areas of entrepreneurship research and research disciplines can
find common ground on which to accumulate additive insights that are theory-based and
empirically tested. We anticipate that readers may find the definition unnecessarily radical;
however, many calls for a shift in perspective have been previously advanced (see McKelvey
(2004) and Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2011) for alternative perspectives on shifting the
entrepreneurship research paradigm). We also anticipate that many readers may find the
offered definition broad and perhaps over-simplified; however, we believe this is a strength
rather than a weakness. It promotes a change in perspective that considers entrepreneurship
as a far wider phenomenon than organisation creation or opportunity exploitation. It Towards
promotes a conceptualisation more concerned with the nature of ideas and a development defining all
process centred on obtaining validation of those ideas through their adoption by others.
entrepreneurship
References
AACSB (2017), Business School Data Guide, AACSB International, Tampa, Florida.
Abreu, M. and Grinevich, V. (2013), “The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: widening the 41
focus on entrepreneurial activities”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 408-422.
Alegre, I., Kislenko, S. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2017), “Organized chaos: mapping the definitions of
social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 248-264.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2007), “Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 1 Nos 1-2, pp. 11-26.
Alvarez, S.A. and Barney, J.B. (2010), “Entrepreneurship and epistemology: the philosophical
underpinnings of the study of entrepreneurial opportunities”, Academy of Management Annals,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 557-583.
Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B. and Anderson, P. (2013), “Forming and exploiting opportunities: the
implications of discovery and creation processes for entrepreneurial and organizational
research”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 301-317.
Alvarez, S.A., Barney, J.B., McBride, R. and Wuebker, R. (2017), “On opportunities: philosophical and
empirical implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 726-730.
Anderson, A.R. and Starnawska, M. (2008), “Research practices in entrepreneurship: problems of
definition, description and meaning”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 221-230.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2001), “Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and cross-cultural
validation”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 495-527.
Audretsch, D.B., Kuratko, D.F. and Link, A.N. (2015), “Making sense of the elusive paradigm of
entrepreneurship”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 703-712.
Audretsch, D. (2012), “Entrepreneurship research”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 755-764.
Autio, E. and Rannikko, H. (2016), “Retaining winners: can policy boost high-growth
entrepreneurship?”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
Bacq, S. and Janssen, F. (2011), “The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional
issues based on geographical and thematic criteria”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 23 Nos 5-6, pp. 373-403.
Baker, T. and Welter, F. (2017), “Come on out of the ghetto, please!–Building the future of
entrepreneurship research”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-184.
Bennett, R. (2006), “Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-188.
Benz, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurship as a non-profit-seeking activity”, International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
Berglund, H., Bousfiha, M. and Mansoori, Y. (2020), “Opportunities as artifacts and entrepreneurship
as design”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 825-846.
Biraglia, A. and Kadile, V. (2017), “The role of entrepreneurial passion and creativity in developing
entrepreneurial intentions: insights from American homebrewers”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 170-188.
Block, J.H., Fisch, C.O. and Van Praag, M. (2017), “The Schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the
empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative
entrepreneurship”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 61-95.
IJEBR Breugst, N., Patzelt, H. and Rathgeber, P. (2015), “How should we divide the pie? Equity distribution
and its impact on entrepreneurial teams”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 66-94.
27,9
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-520.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1987), “Entrepreneurial folklore”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 1-6.
42 Brown, R., Mawson, S. and Mason, C. (2017), “Myth-busting and entrepreneurship policy: the case of
high growth firms”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 29 Nos 5-6, pp. 414-443.
Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J.A., Hitt, M.A. and Venkataraman, S.
(2003), “Doctoral education in the field of entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 309-331.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.A. (2001), “Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165-180.
Byrne, O. and Shepherd, D.A. (2015), “Different strokes for different folks: entrepreneurial narratives
of emotion, cognition, and making sense of business failure”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 375-405.
Cantillon, R. (1734), Essai sur la nature du commerce en general, (Essay on the nature of trade in
general) (Translated by Henry Higgs.), MacMillan, London.
Cardon, M.S., Wincent, J., Singh, J. and Drnovsek, M. (2009), “The nature and experience of
entrepreneurial passion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 511-532.
Cardon, M.S., Foo, M.D., Shepherd, D. and Wiklund, J. (2012), “Exploring the heart: entrepreneurial
emotion is a hot topic”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Cardon, M.S., Post, C. and Forster, W.R. (2017), “Team entrepreneurial passion: its emergence and
influence in new venture teams”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 283-305.
Chandler, G.N., DeTienne, D.R., McKelvie, A. and Mumford, T.V. (2011), “Causation and effectuation
processes: a validation study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 375-390.
Charney, A.H. and Libecap, G.D. (2003), “The contribution of entrepreneurship education: an analysis
of the Berger program”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 385-418.
Collewaert, V., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., De Beuckelaer, A. and Vermeire, J. (2016), “When passion
fades: disentangling the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial passion for founding”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 966-995.
Cope, J. (2005), “Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 373-397.
Cope, J. (2011), “Entrepreneurial learning from failure: an interpretative phenomenological analysis”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 604-623.
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. and Matear, M. (2010), “Social entrepreneurship: why we don’t need a new
theory and how we move forward from here”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 37-57.
Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (1992), “Financial performance of founder-managed versus professionally
managed small corporations”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 25-34.
Dato-on, M.C. and Kalakay, J. (2016), “The winding road of social entrepreneurship definitions: a
systematic literature review”, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 131-160.
Davidsson, P., Low, M. and Wright, M. (2001), “Introduction: low and MacMillan ten years on–
achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 5-16.
Davidsson, P. (2015), “Entrepreneurial opportunities and the entrepreneurship nexus: a re-
conceptualization”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 674-695.
Deeds, D. (2014), “Thoughts on the challenge of empirical research in entrepreneurship”, Handbook of Towards
Research Methods and Applications in Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Edward Elgar
Publishing. defining all
Dess, G.G., Ireland, R.D., Zahra, S.A., Floyd, S.W., Janney, J.J. and Lane, P.J. (2003), “Emerging issues in
entrepreneurship
corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 351-378.
DeTienne, D. and Wennberg, K. (2016), “Studying exit from entrepreneurship: new directions and
insights”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 151-156.
43
DeTienne, D.R. (2010), “Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process:
theoretical development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 203-215.
Dimov, D. (2011), “Grappling with the unbearable elusiveness of entrepreneurial opportunities”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
Dimov, D. (2016), “Toward a design science of entrepreneurship”, Models of Start-Up Thinking and
Action: Theoretical, Empirical and Pedagogical Approaches, Emerald Group Publishing.
Drnovsek, M., Cardon, M.S. and Patel, P.C. (2016), “Direct and indirect effects of passion on growing
technology ventures”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 194-213.
Fisher, R., Merlot, E. and Johnson, L.W. (2018), “The obsessive and harmonious nature of
entrepreneurial passion”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol.
24 No. 1, pp. 22-40.
Gartner, W.B. (1985), “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.
Gartner, W.B. (1988), “Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong questions”, American Journal of Small
Business, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 11-32.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Gundry, L.K., Ofstein, L.F. and Monllor, J. (2016), “Entrepreneurial team creativity: driving innovation
from ideation to implementation”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 55-77.
Hayek, F.A. (1945), “The use of knowledge in society”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 519-530.
Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (1989), “In search of the meaning of entrepreneurship”, Small Business
Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-49.
Hebert, R.F. and Link, A.N. (2006), “The entrepreneur as innovator”, The Journal of Technology
Transfer, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 589-597.
Hindle, K. and Moroz, P. (2010), “Indigenous entrepreneurship as a research field: developing a
definitional framework from the emerging canon”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 357-385.
Howorth, C., Tempest, S. and Coupland, C. (2005), “Rethinking entrepreneurship methodology and
definitions of the entrepreneur”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Hull, D.L., Bosley, J.J. and Udell, G.G. (1980), “Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: identifying
potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics”, Journal of Small Business Management
(Pre-1986), Vol. 18 No. 000001, p. 11.
Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. and Kuratko, D.F. (2009), “Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 19-46.
Jarvis, L.C. (2016), “Identification, intentions and entrepreneurial opportunities: an integrative process
model”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 182-198.
Jin, L., Madison, K., Kraiczy, N.D., Kellermanns, F.W., Crook, T.R. and Xi, J. (2017), “Entrepreneurial
team composition characteristics and new venture performance: a meta–analysis”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 743-771.
IJEBR Kamm, J.B., Shuman, J.C., Seeger, J.A. and Nurick, A.J. (1990), “Entrepreneurial teams in new venture
creation: a research agenda”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 7-17.
27,9
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999), “Information technology adoption across time:
a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 183-213.
Karri, R. and Goel, S. (2008), “Effectuation and over–trust: response to Sarasvathy and dew”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 739-748.
44
Keupp, M.M. and Gassmann, O. (2009), “The past and the future of international entrepreneurship: a
review and suggestions for developing the field”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 600-633.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Kirzner, I.M. (1979), Perception, Opportunity, and Profit, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Klotz, A.C., Hmieleski, K.M., Bradley, B.H. and Busenitz, L.W. (2014), “New venture teams: a review of
the literature and roadmap for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 226-255.
Knight, F.H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Hart, Schaffner and Marx, New York, NY.
Kobia, M. and Sikalieh, D. (2010), “Towards a search for the meaning of entrepreneurship”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 110-127.
Kuckertz, A., Kollmann, T., Krell, P. and St€ockmann, C. (2017), “Understanding, differentiating, and
measuring opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 78-97.
Kuratko, D.F., Morris, M.H. and Schindehutte, M. (2015), “Understanding the dynamics of
entrepreneurship through framework approaches”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Lackeus, M. (2014), “An emotion based approach to assessing entrepreneurial education”, The
International Journal of Management Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 374-396.
Lackeus, M. (2018), “‘What is value?’–A framework for analyzing and facilitating entrepreneurial
value creation”, Uniped, Vol. 41 No. 01, pp. 10-28.
Lackeus, M., Lundqvist, M. and Middleton, K.W. (2016), “Bridging the traditional-progressive
education rift through entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 777-803.
Landstr€om, H., 
Astr€om, F. and Harirchi, G. (2015), “Innovation and entrepreneurship studies: one or
two fields of research?”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 493-509.
Leibenstein, H. (1968), “Entrepreneurship and development”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Lenox, M. and York, J.G. (2011), “Environmental entrepreneurship”, The Oxford Handbook of Business
and Natural Environment, pp. 70-92.
Lerner, D.A., Hunt, R.A. and Dimov, D. (2018), “Action! Moving beyond the intendedly-rational logics
of entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 52-69.
Lichtenstein, B.B., Carter, N.M., Dooley, K.J. and Gartner, W.B. (2007), “Complexity dynamics of
nascent entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 236-261.
Lindgren, M. and Packendorff, J. (2009), “Social constructionism and entrepreneurship”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-47.
Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Low, M.B. (2001), “The adolescence of entrepreneurship research: specification of purpose”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 17-26.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking Towards
it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.
defining all
Macko, A. and Tyszka, T. (2009), “Entrepreneurship and risk taking”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 58
No. 3, pp. 469-487.
entrepreneurship
Man, T.W.Y. and Farquharson, M. (2015), “Psychological ownership in team-based entrepreneurship
education activities”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 600-621.
45
McKelvey, B. (2004), “Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 313-341.
McKenzie, B., Ugbah, S.D. and Smothers, N. (2007), “Who is an entrepreneur? is it still the wrong
question?”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Minniti, M. and Bygrave, W. (2001), “A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 5-16.
Moore, G.A. (1991), Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream
Customers, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Moroz, P.W. and Hindle, K. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as a process: toward harmonizing multiple
perspectives”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 781-818.
Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Age differences in technology adoption decisions: implications
for a changing work force”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 375-403.
Mort, G., Weerawardena, J. and Carnegie, K. (2003), “Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation”,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Omorede, A., Thorgren, S. and Wincent, J. (2015), “Entrepreneurship psychology: a review”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 743-768.
Parker, S.C. (2011), “Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Parker, S.C. (2013), “Do serial entrepreneurs run successively better-performing businesses?”, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 652-666.
Peneder, M. (2009), “The meaning of entrepreneurship: a modular concept”, Journal of Industry,
Competition and Trade, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 77-99.
Peres, R., Muller, E. and Mahajan, V. (2010), “Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: a
critical review and research directions”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 91-106.
Phan, P.H., Wright, M., Ucbasaran, D. and Tan, W.L. (2009), “Corporate entrepreneurship: current
research and future directions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 197-205.
Pittaway, L. and Thorpe, R. (2012), “A framework for entrepreneurial learning: a tribute to Jason
Cope”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 24 Nos 9-10, pp. 837-859.
Rae, D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial learning: a narrative-based conceptual model”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 323-335.
Ramoglou, S. and Tsang, E.W. (2016), “A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: opportunities as
propensities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 410-434.
Ramoglou, S. and Zyglidopoulos, S.C. (2015), “The constructivist view of entrepreneurial
opportunities: a critical analysis”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 71-78.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1976), “New product adoption and diffusion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2
No. 4, pp. 290-301.
Ronstadt, R. (1988), “The corridor principle”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 31-40.
Saaksjarvi, M. (2003), “Consumer adoption of technological innovations”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
IJEBR Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001), “Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2,
27,9 pp. 243-263.
Sarasvathy, S.D. and Venkataraman, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an
entrepreneurial future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 113-135.
Sarasvathy, D.K., Simon, H.A. and Lave, L. (1998), “Perceiving and managing business risks:
differences between entrepreneurs and bankers”, Journal of Economic Behavior and
46 Organization, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 207-225.
Schneider, A. (2017), “Social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship, collectivism, and everything in
between: prototypes and continuous dimensions”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 77 No. 3,
pp. 421-431.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2003), “Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue on technology
entrepreneurship”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 181-184.
Shane, S. (2000), “Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities”, Organization
Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 448-469.
Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: the Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Shane, S. (2009), “Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 141-149.
Shane, S. (2012), “Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: delivering on the promise of
entrepreneurship as a field of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 10-20.
Sharma, P. and Chrisman, J.J. (1999), “Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 11-27.
Shepherd, D.A. (2011), “Multilevel entrepreneurship research: opportunities for studying
entrepreneurial decision making”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 412-420.
Shepherd, D. (2015), “Party On! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity
based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 489-507.
Shirokova, G., Vega, G. and Knatko, D. (2015), “Crossing the threshold from founder management to
professional management in Russian firms: an institutional perspective”, International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 76-106.
Siggelkow, N. (2002), “Evolution toward fit”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 125-159.
Snyder, H. (2019), “Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 104, pp. 333-339.
Steffens, P., Terjesen, S. and Davidsson, P. (2012), “Birds of a feather get lost together: new venture
team composition and performance”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 727-743.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), “A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial
management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, pp. 17-27.
Stewart, W.H. Jr and Roth, P.L. (2001), “Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and
managers: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 145-153.
Sylvester, A., Tate, M. and Johnstone, D. (2013), “Beyond synthesis: Re-presenting heterogeneous
research literature”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1199-1215.
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P. and Wright, M. (2001), “The focus of entrepreneurial research: contextual Towards
and process issues”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 57-80.
defining all
Van den Bulte, C. and Joshi, Y.V. (2007), “New product diffusion with influentials and imitators”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 400-421.
entrepreneurship
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G. and Ackerman, P.L. (2000), “A longitudinal field investigation of gender
differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 33-60.
47
Walker, R.H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R. and Francis, H. (2002), “Technology-enabled service delivery:
an investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection”, International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 91-106.
Wang, C.L. and Chugh, H. (2014), “Entrepreneurial learning: past research and future challenges”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 24-61.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D.B. and Gartner, W.B. (2017), “Everyday entrepreneurship—a call
for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 311-321.

Corresponding author
Peter Cassey can be contacted at: petecassey@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com